<quoted text>He was excommunicated for many reasons mostly publically advocting a stance abjectly different from the Church. It's like the CEO of Verizon placing ads for people to sign up with Comcast. That CEO might as well get a job with Comcast.I believe that civil unions afford those rights. I believe they will not be satisfied until marriage means between any consenting adults.We well just have to see where 'getting with the times' takes us. I don't think the Church wants to go there.BTW the Church has acknowledged that their condemnation of Galileo was wrong but I ask you how many people believed his theory in the 1600's?The Jesuits are famous for their studies of astronomy and have some of the most sophisticaed equipment.And finally, were is it written that using contrception is a mortal sin? I am not aware of that. In fact I have always understood that policies of the Church are just that policies but we all have a conscience and are expected to use it in our lives.

The whole issue of "marriage" will not be something most religiously conservative folks will embrace with any sort of enthusiasm, granted. However, there were other issues that they were as adamantly against in the past, which did come into being, and the sky didn't fall--though I suspect many of them will argue that we're worse off for it as a society. And, with regards to their perception of how our society ought to be, they're "right."The Catholic Church, like any other well-established institution, is naturally going to be resistant to any sort of change that is a potential challenge to its authority. After all, it is following and proclaiming a doctrine that it genuinely believes it eternal and not subject to change over time but we see, in practice that this isn't necessarily so...which is why I was using Galileo as an illustrative example.You'd likely know better than I where a proclamation against contraception is "written." To my understanding it's not--but is traditionally accepted in the overall Catholic community as a "mortal sin." Now, the general perception by non-believers is that the Church is trying to have it both ways by condemning abortion as an abomination, and preaching against contraception as, "thwarting God's will," (emphasis mine, not the church's.) I realize what they're trying to achieve is to prevent sex-out-of-wedlock, and while that's an admirable goal, it's not a "realistic" one.

Virtually all modern dictionaries include SSM. More to the point, we're talking about LEGAL marriage, in which religion is meaningless and which requires state recognition in every case.

The ONLY way to have legal parity with marriage is to have access to it. Separate but equal has never worked, and it ain't gonna start now.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>noun: marriage;&#8195;1.the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.You do want to change the definition of marriage and I believe you should have all your rights.

Who reads the first definition of a word and ignores all the rest and still believes in their personal falsehood? Mendacious people, that's who.

My next question to her, had she responded, would've been to ask what she thought marriage consisted of prior to the 1300s/14th Century. And, had she not noticed there was a longer year span between 1AD and the 1300s than there was between the 1300s and the 20th Century?

<quoted text>The whole issue of "marriage" will not be something most religiously conservative folks will embrace with any sort of enthusiasm, granted. However, there were other issues that they were as adamantly against in the past, which did come into being, and the sky didn't fall--though I suspect many of them will argue that we're worse off for it as a society. And, with regards to their perception of how our society ought to be, they're "right."The Catholic Church, like any other well-established institution, is naturally going to be resistant to any sort of change that is a potential challenge to its authority. After all, it is following and proclaiming a doctrine that it genuinely believes it eternal and not subject to change over time but we see, in practice that this isn't necessarily so...which is why I was using Galileo as an illustrative example.You'd likely know better than I where a proclamation against contraception is "written." To my understanding it's not--but is traditionally accepted in the overall Catholic community as a "mortal sin." Now, the general perception by non-believers is that the Church is trying to have it both ways by condemning abortion as an abomination, and preaching against contraception as, "thwarting God's will," (emphasis mine, not the church's.) I realize what they're trying to achieve is to prevent sex-out-of-wedlock, and while that's an admirable goal, it's not a "realistic" one.

I would basically agree with the first part of your post but you still seem to not consider the fact that the Church has always said that people first consult their own consciences and abide by that.

The Church will always stand behind their position on abortion but maybe not contraception within marriage. In spite of all their problems and failures it is still their responsibility to counsel on what they feel is good for the soul and ultimately society. No one has to agree.

Virtually all modern dictionaries include SSM. More to the point, we're talking about LEGAL marriage, in which religion is meaningless and which requires state recognition in every case.The ONLY way to have legal parity with marriage is to have access to it. Separate but equal has never worked, and it ain't gonna start now.<quoted text>

<quoted text>What original definition? Latin maritatre does not specify That it is soley between a man and woman.The original definition has been updated several times, just like most other words. You appear to want sole possession of how marriage is defined.Controlling much?

If marriage didn't mean between a man and a woman then why are you having so much trouble getting gay marriage accepted. Why is it a legal issue if the meaning has always included gays.

<quoted text>What original definition? Latin maritatre does not specify That it is soley between a man and woman.The original definition has been updated several times, just like most other words. You appear to want sole possession of how marriage is defined.Controlling much?

Is this the first time in history that two people of the same sex can marry?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.